XML 42 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.7.0.1

Commitment and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Repurchase Commitments In connection with its dealers’ wholesale floor-plan financing of boats, the Company has entered into repurchase agreements with various lending institutions. The reserve methodology used to record an estimated expense and loss reserve in each accounting period is based upon an analysis of likely repurchases based on current field inventory and likelihood of repurchase. Subsequent to the inception of the repurchase commitment, the Company evaluates the likelihood of repurchase and adjusts the estimated loss reserve and related consolidated statement of operations account accordingly. This potential loss reserve is presented in accrued liabilities in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. If the Company were obligated to repurchase a significant number of units under any repurchase agreement, its business, operating results and financial condition could be adversely affected. Repurchases and subsequent sales are recorded as a revenue transaction. The net difference between the repurchase price and the resale price is recorded against the loss reserve and presented in cost of sales in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income. During fiscal year ended June 30, 2017 no units were repurchased. During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, the Company agreed to repurchase three units from the lender of two of its former dealers. The total losses on these repurchases were $30. Other than these repurchase commitments, the Company has not repurchased another unit from lenders since July 1, 2010. Accordingly, the Company did not carry a reserve for repurchases as of June 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively. Lease Commitments In connection with a sale-leaseback transaction as of March 2008, the Company now leases its manufacturing and office facilities for $156 per month with periodic inflationary adjustments, plus the payment of property taxes, normal maintenance, and insurance on the property under an agreement which expires March 2028, with three 10-year options to extend, at the Company’s discretion. Refer to Note 5 for more information. The Company also has various other leases for operating facilities in both the U.S. and Australia and machinery and equipment under operating leases that expire over the next twelve months. The total rental expense for fiscal years ended June 30, 2017, 2016 and 2015 was $2,384, $2,394, and $2,256, respectively. Future minimum lease payments under noncancelable operating leases as of June 30, 2017, are as follows:
|  | As of June 30, 2017
Fiscal Year |  |
2018 |  | $ | 2,263 |
2019 |  | 2,297 |
2020 |  | 2,302 |
2021 |  | 2,303 |
2022 |  | 2,315 |
Thereafter |  | 12,577 |
|  | $ | 24,057 |
Contingencies Product Liability The Company is engaged in a business that exposes it to claims for product liability and warranty claims in the event the Company’s products actually or allegedly fail to perform as expected or the use of the Company’s products results, or is alleged to result, in property damage, personal injury or death. Although the Company maintains product and general liability insurance of the types and in the amounts that the Company believes are customary for the industry, the Company is not fully insured against all such potential claims. The Company may have the ability to refer claims to its suppliers and their insurers to pay the costs associated with any claims arising from the suppliers’ products. The Company’s insurance covers such claims that are not adequately covered by a supplier’s insurance and provides for excess secondary coverage above the limits provided by the Company’s suppliers. The Company may experience legal claims in excess of its insurance coverage or claims that are not covered by insurance, either of which could adversely affect its business, financial condition and results of operations. Adverse determination of material product liability and warranty claims made against the Company could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and harm its reputation. In addition, if any of the Company products are, or are alleged to be, defective, the Company may be required to participate in a recall of that product if the defect or alleged defect relates to safety. These and other claims that the Company faces could be costly to the Company and require substantial management attention. Refer to Note 7 for discussion of warranty claims. The Company insures against product liability claims and believes there are no material product liability claims as of June 30, 2017 that would not be covered by our insurance. Litigation Certain conditions may exist which could result in a loss, but which will only be resolved when future events occur. The Company, in consultation with its legal counsel, assesses such contingent liabilities, and such assessments inherently involve an exercise of judgment. If the assessment of a contingency indicates that it is probable that a loss has been incurred, the Company accrues for such contingent loss when it can be reasonably estimated. If the assessment indicates that a potentially material loss contingency is not probable but reasonably estimable, or is probable but cannot be estimated, the nature of the contingent liability, together with an estimate of the range of possible loss if determinable and material, is disclosed. Estimates of potential legal fees and other directly related costs associated with contingencies are not accrued but rather are expensed as incurred. Except as disclosed below, management does not believe there are any pending claims (asserted or unasserted) at June 30, 2017 or June 30, 2016 that will have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Legal Proceedings On August 27, 2010, Pacific Coast Marine Windshields Ltd., or "PCMW," filed suit against the Company and certain third parties, including Marine Hardware, Inc., a third-party supplier of windshields to the Company, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida seeking monetary and injunctive relief. PCMW was a significant supplier of windshields to the Company through 2008, when the Company sought an alternative vendor of windshields in response to defective product supplied by PCMW. PCMW’s amended complaint alleged, among other things, infringement of a design patent and two utility patents related to marine windshields, copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets. The Company denied any liability arising from the causes of action alleged by PCMW and filed a counter claim alleging PCMW’s infringement of one of the Company's patents, conversion of two of the patents asserted against the Company, unfair competition and breach of contract. In September 2014, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with PCMW pursuant to which the Company agreed to pay $20,000 in cash to the plaintiffs, PCMW and Darren Bach, and the parties released each other from all past and present claims. Further, the plaintiffs, including PCMW, agreed not to sue on now-existing intellectual property rights. The Company recorded a one-time charge of $20,000 in connection with the settlement for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014 and the Company paid $20,000 on October 6, 2014. On October 31, 2013, the Company filed suit against Nautique Boat Company, Inc., or "Nautique," in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee alleging infringement of two of the Company's patents and seeking monetary and injunctive relief. This Tennessee lawsuit was a re-filing of a California patent infringement lawsuit against Nautique that was dismissed without prejudice on October 31, 2013. On November 1, 2013, Nautique filed for declaratory judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, claiming that it did not infringe the two patents identified in the original complaint in the Tennessee lawsuit. The Tennessee court enjoined Nautique from maintaining the Florida lawsuit which was partially duplicative. Nautique dismissed the Florida lawsuit to comply with the Tennessee court’s ruling. On December 13, 2013, the Company amended the Company's complaint to add another of its patents to the Tennessee lawsuit. All three patents in the case relate to the Company's proprietary wake surfing technology. On June 27, 2014, Nautique filed a petition with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or “PTO,” requesting institution of an Inter Partes Review, or “IPR,” of the Company’s U.S. Pat. No. 8,539,897, one of the three patents at issue in the Tennessee litigation. On February 6, 2015, the Company and Nautique entered into a Settlement Agreement (the "Nautique Settlement Agreement") to settle the patent infringement lawsuit. Under the terms of the Nautique Settlement Agreement, Nautique made a one-time payment of $2,250 and entered into a license agreement for the payment of future royalties for boats sold by Nautique using the licensed technology. The parties agreed to dismiss all claims in the patent litigation and jointly request the PTO to terminate the IPR. On February 17, 2015, the parties dismissed the patent litigation with prejudice and on February 25, 2015, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office terminated the IPR. On June 29, 2015, the Company filed suit against MasterCraft Boat Company, LLC, or "MasterCraft," in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, seeking monetary and injunctive relief. The Company's complaint alleged MasterCraft's infringement of a utility patent related to wake surfing technology (U.S. Patent No. 8,578,873). The Court had issued a scheduling order setting deadlines for discovery and other events in the litigation, leading up to a trial beginning on August 14, 2017. On February 16, 2016, the Company filed a second suit against MasterCraft in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, seeking monetary and injunctive relief. The Company’s complaint alleges MasterCraft’s infringement of another utility patent related to wake surfing technology (U.S. Patent No. 9,260,161). The Court had issued a scheduling order setting deadlines for discovery and other events in the litigation, leading up to a trial beginning on October 30, 2017. On May 18, 2016, MasterCraft filed two petitions with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or “PTO,” requesting institution of Inter Partes Review, or “IPR,” of the Company’s U.S. Pat. No. 8,578,873, the patent at issue in the first Tennessee lawsuit. On August 23, 2016, the Company filed its preliminary responses to the IPR petitions. On November 16, 2016, the PTO declined to institute IPR in response to either of the two petitions. On September 26, 2016, MasterCraft filed a request with the PTO for Ex Parte Reexamination of the Company’s U.S. Pat. No. 9,260,161, the patent at issue in the second Tennessee lawsuit. On November 18, 2016, the PTO granted that request for ex parte reexamination, and on February 16, 2017, the PTO issued a Non-Final Office Action. On April 17, 2017, the Company filed a Response to the Non-Final Office Action. On May 2, 2017, the Company and MasterCraft entered into a Settlement Agreement (the “MasterCraft Settlement Agreement”) to settle lawsuits filed by the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee alleging infringement by MasterCraft of two of the Company’s utility patents. Under the terms of the MasterCraft Settlement Agreement, MasterCraft made a one-time payment of $2,500 during the fourth quarter of fiscal year end June 30, 2017, and entered into a license agreement for the payment of future royalties for boats sold by MasterCraft using the licensed technology. The parties agreed to dismiss all claims in the patent litigation. On April 22, 2014, Marine Power Holding, LLC ("Marine Power"), a former supplier of engines to the Company, initiated a lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee seeking monetary damages. On July 10, 2015, the Company filed an Answer and Counterclaim in the lawsuit filed by Marine Power. The Company denied any liability arising from the causes of action alleged by Marine Power. The lawsuit proceeded to trial on August 8, 2016 and on August 18, 2016, a judgment was rendered by the jury against the Company in the litigation with Marine Power resulting in the Company taking a charge of $3,268 during the fiscal year ended June, 30, 2016. The Company subsequently prevailed on post-judgment motions and, on December 15, 2016, the court amended the judgment in the lawsuit for monetary damages to $1,938. On December 23, 2016, Marine Power filed a notice of appeal contesting the court's decision to reduce the amount of the original judgment. On January 6, 2017, the Company filed a notice of cross appeal, pursuant to which the Company appealed the amended final judgment and other rulings of the court. On May 27, 2017, the Company and Marine Power entered into a final settlement agreement whereby the Company agreed to pay $2,175 to settle all claims related to the litigation (the "Settlement"). The Settlement was paid in full on May 30, 2017. On June 9, 2017, a joint motion to withdraw appeals was submitted by the parties and their respective appeals were subsequently dismissed. Accordingly, no further losses were accrued as of June 30, 2017. On July 6, 2017, Marine Power filed an acknowledgment of satisfaction in the trial court, in which it stipulated that the amended final judgment entered on December 15, 2016 had been compromised and satisfied without any admission, agreement or acknowledgment of liability or fault by any party. On August 26, 2016, Wizard Lake Marine Inc. and Wizard Lake Marine (B.C.) Inc., collectively “Wizard Lake”, a former dealer of the Company’s, initiated a lawsuit against the Company in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Canada seeking monetary damages. The suit alleges breach of contract, wrongful termination, misrepresentation, breach of duty of good faith, and intentional interference. Wizard Lake is asking for damages exceeding $5,000. The Company denies any liability arising from the causes of action alleged by Wizard Lake and is vigorously defending the lawsuit, including commencing a counterclaim against Wizard Lake. The lawsuit is early in the discovery phase.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=68068213&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=73718637&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration